There are two oddly opposed themes with Sahel broadswords. Either incredibly vague generalizations or attempts to be so excruciatingly precise that the true range of particular forms is entirely lost. The first approach is typically to be found among auction houses, dealers, museums and some collectors with relatively over arching interests.

In the UK almost every straight bladed sword, be it a kaskara or a takouba is labelled as Sudanese and quite often attributed to the Madhist wars. The Sudanese label is not as imprecise as it might sound, Anglo/Egyptian Sudan covered much of the modern territory known by that name, while French Sudan was the former name for the modern state of Mali. The Sudan in the 19th century was simply a well used term covering much of the Sahel.

Within takouba themselves there is often a tendency to generalize all swords as being Tuareg. This is quite simply a result of the Tuareg being the most visible, romantic and written about group which uses the form. Plenty of sources in fact illustrate and describe takouba among the Hausa, Fulani and Nupe, but none of these groups achieved the appeal of the 'blue men of the desert' and modern recognition of the form became somewhat exclusively Tuareg.

On the other side, many collectors strive to find neat, tribal attributions for swords. This perhaps stems from the work of ethnographers in areas like the Belgian Congo, where distinct tribal sword forms existed. Allowing for easy classification.

In the case of more fluid cultures in the Sahel, this not something that is easily accomplished or necessarily true. The problem with this approach is that a piece known to be collected from one culture, may not be indicative that most let alone all of it's features are due to the influence of that particular culture. Arms were widely traded in these areas. At the most leather work can be indicative of cultural use, however even this is not conclusive, as certain areas were known for their leather work which was widely exported.

How do you attribute a sword? Based on the leather work, the maker of the hilt, the maker of the blade? All of the above or none of the above?

The problem that arises from some of these attributions is that it forms a basis to attribute similar swords to a particular tribe of group even though that simply may not be true. This is something I am acutely aware of, having seen some of my own speculation on attribution later reported and used as examples on various online discussions.

It's certainly important to know as much as possible about each sword example available, including the tribe, group, or area it was collected from. But that has to be balanced with the realities of Sahel culture, the intermingling of tribal groups, the commerce of weaponry, the multicultural cities that existed and the force of Islam in spreading cultural patterns. In my view, such identifications are more valuable in showing the range of these cruciform hilt swords than in pigeonholing specific variants. Regional characteristics do seem to exist, but these are not necessarily found along ethnic lines. This is not meant to discourage attempts to attribute pieces, but simply a warning that it is often not a simple process.

Most collectors are well aware that European blades can and do appear in African swords. However it is still often difficult for some, particularly those with an interest and experience with 18-19th century military swords, to reconcile the crude nature and style of many trade blades with the sophisticated blade production centers of Europe. Why were so many simple, roughly finished triple and single fuller broadsword blades still being made?

A standard triple fuller pattern - the ubiquitous form in takouba

For a start we know some of the manufacturers. Makers like Clauberg and Peter Kull, both of Solingen, produced single and triple fuller blades in the 19th century for export. Both these makers made fine sabers, presentation swords and other items for European states and clients. But they evidently also made large numbers of these basic swords as well for export. Many ended up in major Sahel centers like Kano, in modern day Nigeria.

To understand something of the economic reasons behind this, it is necessary to briefly describe the processes involved in making swords at the time. For several centuries water powered trip hammers and grind wheels had been used by blade maker's workshops. This semi industrialized process allowed for uniformity in the final product. In parallel steel production techniques had improved in quality and consistency. By the 17th munitions grade swords were being produced relatively cheaply. Swords like the schiavona featured heavy broadsword blades of often simple design and levels of finish. These products would also form the base of cheap exports to the African continent and the design traditions that would carry on into the 19th century.

A typical single fuller blade

These blades so often encountered in 19th century African swords are not some bizarre aberration but rather part of a long and continuous tradition. Bypassing the time consuming polishing and levels of finish required for a contemporary sword destined for a European client, like an officer's saber, production costs were kept low. This is evidenced in full by the relative prices demanded in Africa. Heinrich Barth records in Kano the price of an unset sword blade as 1000 cowrie shells (the local form of currency). In comparison a bull could cost 8,000. Clearly there was a great abundance of cheap European produced blades, almost exclusively from Solingen in the mid 19th century. Barth also usefully records the fluctuation in sword blade prices. In Tuareg areas around Timbuktu that price could be equivalent of roughly 10-12,000 cowries.

This does not mean European blades were excessively cheap by local standards, but they were good value. Many surviving swords show extensive use.

A very worn blade with many nicks in the edge.

As Barth rightly notes, there was a good profit from the importation and resale of sword blades from major centers like Kano.

Barth's travels in the Sahel

If the blades could be sold for a profit in Africa, then there was clearly an economic reason that kept Solingen makers producing them. Part of the reason for this was the poor quality in iron ore around Kano and other Sahel centers. While some regions, particularly Mandara, had very good ore, many did not and a locally produced sword would be quite inferior to the European steel of the time.

In summary there is nothing strange about finding so many European blades in Africa and certainly nothing strange about the style and the types produced into the mid 19th century in Europe for these markets. The economic factors on both sides are quite clear. While the contrast with what Solingen makers were producing with other regions is quite large, the needs and reasons behind both are sharply defined and pose no contradiction.